Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue dic 02 17:27:01 -0300 2010: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mié dic 01 17:13:35 -0300 2010: > >> > >> > Well, porting applications from other database systems that support > >> > synonyms > >> > (i.e. Oracle, DB2, SQL Server). > >> > >> SQL Server supports synonyms? If it's not Oracle-only, it's a more > >> powerful argument to have the feature. > > > > I think it's worth mentioning that in SQL Server, synonyms are not > > schema-qualified; they're "global" objects. > > Seems like they have more than one kind. > > http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/statements_7001.htm
Yeah, the Oracle system is a lot more complex than SQL Server's, but I was only talking about the latter, for which see here: http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3635426/SYNONYM-in-SQL-Server-2005.htm > The list of objects for which they support synonyms is also > interesting. The bit that allows a synonym to reference another synonym seems like worth considering further (either reject them altogether, or have some way to deal with possible cycles). I think the original proposal in this thread didn't mention them at all. (I don't think we should consider synonyms for either functions or stored procedures; that would make the current mess of function resolution rules a lot messier.) -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
